Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

You're not gonna win that fight by kicking an officer, Zaptruder. She should have just cooperated and lawyered up. It's a whole lot easier to win a suit against discriminatory policing when you're not fighting and hollering on tape.

I'd imagine the cost of that suit is going to be more than just paying the jaywalking fine though.

 

[hwateber]

Officer was incredibly scummy, but she didn't handle the situation well

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Always was terrified of the cops in phoenix during my 3 years there.

 

[MHWilliams]

Actually, looking at the Arizone statutes, she didn't have to provide ID for a non-vehicle stop.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/01595.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

Failure to stop or provide driver license or evidence of identity; violation; classification
A. The operator of a motor vehicle who knowingly fails or refuses to bring the operator's motor vehicle to a stop after being given a visual or audible signal or instruction by a peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
B. After stopping as required by subsection A of this section, the operator of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to exhibit the operator's driver license as required by section 28-3169 or a driver who is not licensed and who fails or refuses to provide evidence of the driver's identity on request is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. The evidence of identity that is presented shall contain all of the following information:
1. The driver's full name.
2. The driver's date of birth.
3. The driver's residence address.
4. A brief physical description of the driver, including the driver's sex, weight, height and eye and hair color.
5. The driver's signature.
C. A person other than the driver of a motor vehicle who fails or refuses to provide evidence of the person's identity to a peace officer or a duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency on request, when such officer or agent has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a violation of this title, is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
D. A peace officer or duly authorized agent of a traffic enforcement agency may give the signal or instruction required by subsection A of this section by hand, emergency light, voice, whistle or siren.
E. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subsection B of this section if the person provided evidence of identity required by subsection B, paragraphs 1 through 5 of this section and produces to the court a legible driver license or an authorized duplicate of the license that is issued to the person and that was valid at the time the violation of subsection B of this section occurred.

 

[orochi91]

Because people strongly and naturally act strongly against feelings of injustice with anger.

Should citizens submit to all positions of authority irrespective of the validity of the authority?

Citizens should be empowered to resist unjust authoritarian actions - if only so that authority is motivated to ensure some degree of empathic fairness for the people that they're put in charge over.

In a state where the balance of 'law' has shifted entirely over to authority with no recourse for the citizenry, then it's not at all an exaggeration to say that we live in a police state.

Why is it bad to live in a police state? because then the people that enforce the laws have no accountability for their own actions - and thus becomes a very easily exploitable area of society for amoral, power hungry and corrupt individuals.

Jaywalking is one of those laws that in practice grant far too much power to the police - given the frequency with which it occurs and the level of danger the typical incidence of jaywalking poses (very little). The essence of the law exists to stop frequent and untenable disruptions in traffic and risk to life - but when applied without consideration for context can be rightfully seen as a tool of oppression.

Lol none of that matters the moment you hit an officer. She fucked up the situation more
than it already was. I would have shown the dude my ID and moved on. Why risk it with
the way police operate these days?

 

[SapientWolf]

I'd imagine the cost of that suit is going to be more than just paying the jaywalking fine though.

That seems accurate, but maybe the university and the campus PD would want to avoid the embarrassment caused by singling out and harassing minority professors. Of course, at this point, she's lucky if she gets to keep her job. All over a jaywalking stop.

All I'm saying is, if you're going to fight then fight smart.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Just another case for why video recordings of on duty police are essential.

 

[orochi91]

That seems accurate, but maybe the university and the campus PD would want to avoid the embarrassment caused by singling out and harassing minority professors. Of course, at this point, she's lucky if she gets to keep her job. All over a jaywalking stop.

All I'm saying is, if you're going to fight then fight smart.

Yup. She did not handle the situation well, like, at all.

 

[MHWilliams]

Lol none of that matters the moment you hit an officer. She fucked up the situation more
than it already was. I would have shown the dude my ID and moved on. Why risk it with
the way police operate these days?

I probably would've shown my ID too if I was in Arizona.

But perhaps... just maybe... we shouldn't tolerate that from our police officers?

 

[-Deimos]

Professor was in the wrong. Cop gave her plenty of opportunity to put her hands behind her back but she resisted the entire time.

 

[TheJLC]

Actually, looking at the Arizone statutes, she didn't have to provide ID for a non-vehicle stop.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS



http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/01595.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

Aren't those two different statues covering two different things? First one is for failure to provide real name (can only be verified via ID), second one is for failure to provide ID or License under a traffic stop. Meaning, under the first you can be prosecuted, but not under the first.

 

[orochi91]

I probably would've shown my ID too if I was in Arizona.

But perhaps... just maybe... we shouldn't tolerate that from our police officers?

You are correct. I would have filed a complaint or something afterwards. I would
certainly NOT assault a cop, as that would unnecessarily escalate things in
their favor.

It's an unfortunate reality we live in :/

 

[Sophia]

True enough; it is stupid he stopped her in the first place, and I'd definitely be upset as well. I'm just saying it doesn't seem like she was doing much to ease the situation, though I'm not sure if that's really her responsibility.

I have a feeling the situation would have been very different if the officer had been honest in his intent. His language is authoritative, harsh, and filled with ultimatums. Which is absurd for something as simple as jaywalking in an area with construction and no traffic. However, she acted rather foolishly even if it was in the heat of the moment. That won't help her in court later.

 

[MHWilliams]

Aren't those two different statues covering two different things? First one is for failure to provide real name (can only be verified via ID), second one is for failure to provide ID or License under a traffic stop. Meaning, under the first you can be prosecuted, but not under the first.

The first is the non-traffic related one. Which only requires you to provide a truthful name upon request, no ID. The Id is required for the traffic stop.

She's going to court in Arizona though. I'd just fuck off out of the state and move to somewhere civilized.

 

[Zaptruder]

You're not gonna win that fight by kicking an officer, Zaptruder. She should have just cooperated and lawyered up. It's a whole lot easier to win a suit against discriminatory policing when you're not fighting and hollering on tape.

Of course that's the current reality of this situation. I'm simply arguing that the law should empower citizens to resist blatantly unjust actions.

In the current quagmire of the justice system, your best bet is to lay down with your hands on your head and comply 100% and lawyer up. But that's not necessarily the best situation for society at large.

So even if she's legally in the 'wrong' in the instance, she's not wholly morally in the wrong - nor should be wholly legally in the wrong.

 

[DarkFlow]

Oh ASU, you need to stop getting in the news for stupid shit like this.

 

[SapientWolf]

Of course that's the current reality of this situation. I'm simply arguing that the law should empower citizens to resist blatantly unjust actions.

In the current quagmire of the justice system, your best bet is to lay down with your hands on your head and comply 100% and lawyer up. But that's not necessarily the best situation for society at large.

So even if she's legally in the 'wrong' in the instance, she's not wholly morally in the wrong - nor should be wholly legally in the wrong.

No, it's still better for citizens to avoid physical confrontation with officers. If the law decides that the arrest was 'just' (as what seems to be the case here) then you're still legally hosed, assuming that you didn't get your face beaten in.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

As she herself noted, everyone else was doing it too. And the officer was absolutely looking to cause problems.

This is a great perspective on her mentality of breaking the law and thinking that police only enforce laws to cause problems.

She has a classic case of the "I do what I want", and that because someone else got away with it, she can do it too. If she has a problem with a certain law, take it up with the city Mayor.

Here's a few key points that the news station is slow on the uptake:

1. Your job doesn't matter. Making sure your audience knows she's an ASU Professor 20 times over doesn't make her immune to law. She doesn't get special privelages over anybody else.

2. She was legally detained per the infraction commited. Like I said earlier, if she doesn't agree with that law take it up with your congressman or something.

3. She refused to hand over ID, and wasn't answering any questions.

4. Because of #3, she was going to be arrested. She then resisted arrest, which gives police practically any means necessary to arrest you. Slamming you on the ground is practically standard protocol.

5. What you are wearing doesn't mean they will go gentle on you. Seriously are you that dumb to think that?

6. Also not buying the "kicked him because he was going for her anatomy" BS. Did she kick him again as he was conducting a pat down on her right after this and before he put her in the back of the patrol car? Nope.


Moral of the story here is that if you feel you have a legitimate beef about anything be it racial discrimination, bad laws, etc, to take it up with the proper channels. Fighting it out on the street with the Cops is going to make you look like an idiot, get you slammed on the ground, and thrown in jail.

 

[linsivvi]

More police bullshit against minorities.

Stupid uneducated jocks who couldn't get a decent job elsewhere.

 

[kame-sennin]

Don't resist is the moral of this story.

"Land of the free, home of the brave".

We should probably come up with a new slogan.

 

[Speedy Blue Dude]

You're absolutely right, but it's important to note the non-technical part of this discussion. Technically, jay-walking is illegal. Practically, it's the sort of crime you'd only plausibly enforce if someone does it egregiously (e.g. walking out in front of a moving car with right of way) or if you already don't like someone and need some excuse to bully them. Given the video, this situation absolutely seems like the latter.

From a purely technical, legal perspective, it certainly looks like the police officer is in the right. From an ethical perspective -- or the less formal "who is being the asshole here?" perspective -- you can make a compelling case that the asshole here is the officer (Although certainly the professor responded poorly and can be guilty too). The professor appears to be correct that the officer is clearly enforcing the law selectively.

What if the officer wasn't around to see the other people jaywalk? He can't enforce what he doesn't see.

She got caught commiting a crime and responded terribly when the law was enforced. The Police Officer isn't in the wrong for enforcing the law.

 

[kame-sennin]

For those that say she should have just handed over her I.D., is there any command from the police that would compel you to resist, and if so, what would it be?

 

[Dennis]

She handled that in a remarkably stupid manner for a professor.

Should have voiced her objection, then complied and wait to take further steps to report the cop.

Once you start kicking the cop you done fucked up.

 

[davepoobond]

Wasn't there that other jogger girl who was forcibly taken down to the ground for jaywalking? What happened to her?

 

[water_wendi]

Wasn't there that other jogger girl who was forcibly taken down to the ground for jaywalking? What happened to her?

She should be thankful the police didnt rape her.

edit: i should point out that im referencing the police chiefs response to the jogger incident.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

For those that say she should have just handed over her I.D., is there any command from the police that would compel you to resist, and if so, what would it be?

No. Resisting is stupid 100% of the time.

Even if you know the officer is wrong, and especially if you think you have a racially motivated case, play it cool. Drop a fat lawsuit on the department over it. If the judge determines you were right, not only will the officer be fired, but you will be getting paid $$$.

Or you can resist, have your face make contact with the asphalt, and spend some time in jail.

Clear decision to me.

 

[Trigger Warning]

She handled that in a remarkably stupid manner for a professor.

A STEM professor would have handled it in a more logical manner.

 

[SegaShack]

She fought with the officer who was not arresting her but detaining her because of her attitude against him. Her resisting this and fighting with him is the stupidest thing. Kicking him is even worse. You can't assault a police officer.

When people start yelling at or demanding things from the police it will make them scared the person may attack them.

 

[timetokill]

I almost never back cops in these kinds of threads, but...

An arrest for jaywalking is bullshit, but she was breaking the law. I know cops hand out jaywalking tickets in front of USC like they're candy, and so many people do it it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Including TWO of my professors, lol. Furthermore, she was required by law to show her ID in Arizona. While it's bullshit, she can't be surprised when she gets arrested for not doing so. It needs to be changed but you're not going to change it when you're staring down an officer.

Furthermore, she lost any backing when she kicked the officer. You just can't do that.

 

[kame-sennin]

No. Resisting is stupid 100% of the time.

So, you're saying you would let police anally penetrate you repeatedly and force you to take multiple enemas?

 

[dejay]

For those that say she should have just handed over her I.D., is there any command from the police that would compel you to resist, and if so, what would it be?

Certainly none as petty as a legal request to see ID. If it was an unlawful command that I didn't have to legally follow I might, but it would involve searching my house without a warrant or something like that.

 

[benjipwns]

So, you're saying you would let police anally penetrate you repeatedly and force you to take multiple enemas?

Now now, don't judge others lifestyle choices.

 

[dejay]

So, you're saying you would let police anally penetrate you repeatedly and force you to take multiple enemas?

It's not like the guy had a choice in the matter.

 

[travisbickle]

Compulsory ID cards, arrested for crossing the street, and police brutality. It's a shame to hear these stories about China but it will be a while before the country develops into one that respects its citizens' freedom.

 

[RedStep]

So, you're saying you would let police anally penetrate you repeatedly and force you to take multiple enemas?

C'mon son, what does this have to do with anything? If you get popped on some minor infraction (jaywalking, driving 5mph over the speed limit, rolling through a stop sign with nobody around) you take your citation and go on your way. Part of the citation process is showing your ID.

You can either accept that you live in a nation with laws and penalties for breaking laws, or you can go be a badass rebel and hang out in jail. It's not hard to avoid these issues, most of us will go our entire lives without much worse than a fine... but one can always be a fucking idiot and turn that fine into jail time and a criminal record.

 

[giga]

I had sympathy until she started to resist arrest. Come on, she should be smarter than that. If you resist arrest, they will use any means necessary to subdue and arrest you. Your professional background or attire is not relevant.

Take the citation and fight it in court. Not on the street.

 

[Kinyou]

resisting arrest

That's the funny part. Apparently can a cop try to arrest you for whatever reason he likes, but when you don't agree with that you're suddenly resisting arrest; meaning you're now really a culprit

 

[moggio]

Why is jaywalking even a crime?

 

[Funky Papa]

Wait, Maricopa County? That Maricopa County? The one whose police is so out of control *international TV crews* have flown to it so they could expose how much of a neofascist swine its Sheriff is, only to find him happily obliging, revelling on his "tough guy" infamy?

Yeah...

 

[Heshinsi]

Demanding to see ID? Is he trying to ascertain whether she's an American or something? It's like you have tip toe around egg shells with police in America, especially if you're a visible minority. Sad state of affairs.

 

[Vilam]

Count me shocked that a professor would think they're above the law.

Do I think jaywalking laws are bullshit? I sure do, but I'm not going to argue with a cop about it, and I'm sure not going to raise my voice to a cop about getting his hands off me or suggesting I get special treatment due to what I'm wearing. Good luck with that, hah. People really need to learn to keep their pride in check when dealing with authority figures; you literally can't win in that situation. Do you think she lets students speak in a disrespectful manner to her in her classroom? Somehow I doubt it - so why is it any different with her and the police?

 

[Jacobi]

I was caught jaywalking once. The cops screamed YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE LIGHTS ARE GREEN! I was like YEAH...WHATEVER, and that was the end of the encounter (as it should be).

 

[TAJ]

She fought with the officer who was not arresting her but detaining her because of her attitude against him. Her resisting this and fighting with him is the stupidest thing. Kicking him is even worse. You can't assault a police officer.

When people start yelling at or demanding things from the police it will make them scared the person may attack them.

Lol, at the bolded.
I don't even bother saying anything to a cop asking who I am. They just get a dismissive wave. I didn't even know that there were other states where that was illegal.

 

[IISANDERII]

Yes you can. You can see it in the video.

He tried to pull down her dress because she was exposed.

Aggravated assault. This may give a clue to explaining all the police brutality because if a little kick like that can be considered aggravated assault, police officers are the most fragile human beings on Earth and would react aggressively with lethal force any time they get breathed on.

 

[FiggyCal]

Why is jaywalking even a crime?

It's dangerous for the drivers on the road.

Aggravated assault. This may give a clue to explaining all the police brutality because if a little kick like that can be considered aggravated assault, police officers are the most fragile human beings on Earth and would react aggressively with lethal force any time they get breathed on.

Police officers can really be the biggest pussies on earth.

 

[itxaka]

Guy was looking for trouble and found it. She got into the trap.

Aggravated assault. This may give a clue to explaining all the police brutality because if a little kick like that can be considered aggravated assault, police officers are the most fragile human beings on Earth and would react aggressively with lethal force any time they get breathed on.

little kick=assault, body slamming=adequate use of police force. Super simple stuff.

 

[ICKE]

This could have been avoided with better conflict management that both individuals lacked. The woman was trying to be as annoying as possible, not complying and even kicking the officer.

On the other hand police are supposed to respond when there are disturbances, their purpose should not be to arrest individuals for every minor violation there is. I just can't comprehend how a "professor" can act so poorly in a situation like that.

 

[TAJ]

It's dangerous for the drivers on the road.

Haha, no.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797

 

[computers putin']

Actually, looking at the Arizone statutes, she didn't have to provide ID for a non-vehicle stop.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS



http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/01595.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

So, she might have been selectively targeted and she didn't have to legally show i.d., her outraged response is pretty understandable to me. Also, she didn't know what the officer was going to do when he reached for her skirt, she was just defending herself. No need to blame the victim, the officers where the one's carrying out the injustice and not acting smart.

 

[xDUMPWEEDx]

On the other hand police are supposed to respond when there are disturbances, their purpose should not be to arrest individuals for every minor violation there is.

You clearly have zero idea how U.S. Law Enforcement works, or you are just from a different country and are unfamiliar with the US.

What you are describing is a purely reactionary force. That style of policing, while cool in the country you are from, doesn't work in the US due to the general high level of criminal activity throughout this country.

You would be shocked how often extremely minor stops such as jaywalking or rolling a stop sign leads to much, much, bigger things. This proactive approach has led to countless other crimes being discovered such as drug paraphernalia, illegal gun possession, DUI, driving uninsured/unlicensed, driving a stolen car, etc.

It's always the smallest things that cause
criminals to get caught.

Also, she didn't know what the officer was going to do when he reached for her skirt, she was just defending herself. No need to blame the victim, the officers where the one's carrying out the injustice and not acting smart.

If only that excuse has ever been successful. "I didn't know what the Officer was doing so I struck them!" You have zero credibility with that excuse.

So, she might have been selectively targeted and she didn't have to legally show i.d., her outraged response is pretty understandable to me.

That's for a Judge to decide. It's look like you, along with many in this thread, are completely oblivious to how the US legal system works.